Securing the Nation Is About More than Weapons By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed: New Age Islam's Selection, 10 October 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
10 October 2017
• Securing the Nation Is About More than Weapons
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
• Shoura and Vital Decisions
By Hala Al-Qahtani
• Who Is The UN Siding With In Yemen?
By Mashari Althaydi
• Turkey and Iran Dance the Diplomatic Two-Step
By Yasar Yakis
• The Irresistible Force and the Immovable Objects
By Sharif Nashashibi
• Welcome To the UAE, Welcome to Dubai
By Nasif Kayed
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Securing the Nation Is About More than Weapons
By Abdulrahman Al-Rashed
9 October 2017
Before we discuss the two military deals sealed during King Salman’s visit to Moscow last week, we shall be asking a more important question: Why does Riyadh seem increasingly interested in importing weapons in greater quantity and of greater quality?
In fact, the potential external hazards threatening the Kingdom are at their highest today, because of two factors: The increase in the Iranian threat and the decrease in the US support.
The Iranian threat has become more serious now on all Saudi borders, exacerbated in the north through Syria and Iraq and in the south through Yemen. These threats would have overwhelmed the region if the Muslim Brotherhood, under Mohammed Morsi, still had Egypt under their control.
The second factor is the decrease in US cover and protection. Barack Obama clearly stated during his presidency that the old Saudi-American bilateral understanding that the security of Saudi Arabia was linked to US security no longer served US national interests.
Thus, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was stuck with one option: To strengthen its defense capabilities.
For Western governments, arm deals are always bound to political conditions. For instance, the Obama administration has stopped providing Saudi Arabia with ammunition in the past and deprived it of intelligence cooperation, in a disagreement over the war in Yemen. It is therefore not surprising to see American institutions and Congress members oppose the Saudi-Russian deal. A lot of big important deals face opposition. Many groups are opposed to Riyadh; some accuse it of military operations against civilians while others work systematically in favour of forces opposed to Saudi Arabia. Despite all of the above, the American President is the sole decision-taker – serving, of course, American interests.
King Salman’s visit, first to Russia by a Saudi monarch, is important in the framework of Saudi efforts to rebalance the oil market and keep Moscow politically neutral and away from Iran. This visit has also expanded the Kingdom’s military options. However, the military deal with Russia does not aim to replace the American arms supply nor affect Saudi-American ties, as some interpreted it. As I explained in the beginning, the deal aims to strengthen the Kingdom and empower it to defend and protect itself amid growing threats from all around.
By buying arms from Russia and China, Saudi Arabia will be released from American pressure and will have other options in case America decides to stop providing ammunition or prevent Saudi Arabia from using American-made arms in its next war.
When Saudi Arabia receives its arsenal soon, it will have two missile defence systems: The American THAAD and the Russian S-400, ready to protect the Kingdom from any Iranian or other attack. By having several options, the Kingdom will never again go through what it endured two years ago in Yemen.
Gulf countries, envied by neighbouring countries for their abundant and rich resources, can only improve their defence mechanisms by buying more arms and developing their scientific and industrial systems as well. Truth be told, this is what Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is doing for Saudi Arabia: Refining its military power, away from media.
The fate of Gulf countries is to live in a tormented region full of wars and chaos. This is the reason that pushed Saudi Arabia to think that being better on the military level does not only depend on arm deals, but is an integral system that involves science, industry and discipline. This is also what Israel, one of the world’s largest arms importers, believes in.
The biggest success is keeping the armaments from becoming a heavy burden or a reason for bankruptcy and recession. It should be beneficial to achieve development, growth and peace.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1175131
-----
Shoura and Vital Decisions
By Hala Al-Qahtani
9 October 2017
THE Shoura (Consultative) Council presents its recommendations to the King. The Council of Ministers takes a final decision on issues in light of Shoura’s observations. When the views of the two councils agree on a topic, final decisions shall be made on it after the King’s approval. If the views of the two councils differ, the matter returns to the Shoura for its opinion and referral to the King to take a final decision, as stipulated by Article 17 of the Shoura Council System.
This clearly shows that the Shoura is given a second chance to bring about a consensus on the issue when differences arise because it represents the people. It is sufficient to know that ten members of the council have the right to propose a new law or amend an existing law if it is passed by majority vote. The law is then presented to the King by the Shoura president.
Rather than taking advantage of these flexible powers to amend laws or make new ones, some members have been obstructing the council’s operation due to their incompetence and inefficiently. The council's law does not allow a member to exploit his/her membership to realize vested interests, like opposing a proposal without any good reason.
Instead of making contributions toward solving social issues some Shoura members display their ignorance, retrogression, backwardness, domination and outdated views. The negative views and ideas of these members have been obstructing activities of the consultative body.
For example, some members have opposed the proposal to merge the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (Haia) with the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Call and Guidance, while some others defended it, saying the Haia members are sometimes irregular and go against the regime. Even after the issuance of legal memo on merger they continued to reject the proposal citing vague reasons. This way they have killed many important proposals in the past.
Recently the corridors of the Shoura Council witnessed a strange incident. Some members tried to remove a proposal from the computer system without realizing that its hard copies have been distributed among members in advance. If members are unable to use their brain they are not supposed to remain in the Shoura for another three years. I think the Shoura membership should be revised to suit current challenges.
What is truly pathetic is the performance of the council’s official spokesman who denied the proposal’s inclusion for discussion at the Shoura. Actually, the council had agreed to postpone it to the next report after three months. But the spokesman insisted on his opinion while evidences proved he was lying. If the official spokesman deliberately misleads society, at a time when the accuracy of information is a professional challenge, it will be ideal to drop his membership without showing any leniency because the performance of Shoura members requires high professionalism.
This is not the first time the official spokesman denies facts. After dozens of Shoura members in the current and previous sessions supported the proposal allowing women to drive in the Kingdom, demanding clarity of vision on the issue, the spokesman said the Shoura had not received any proposal on women driving. These kinds of statements demoralize people and lessen their respect toward the Shoura and reduce their confidence in the consultative body.
I would like to point out that the council's performance on the issue of women driving was really frustrating and weak. Consequently, the King intervened and took a decisive decision and Shoura members must be ashamed of their poor performance.
The council’s stand on the Anti-Racism and Anti-Hatred Law, which is required by all developed societies to maintain stability but the law still languishes in the corridors of Shoura committees that deliberately prolong its study, although they have stated that it’s ready for debate and vote. Then why they hesitate to go ahead with its discussion at the Shoura.
We were certainly relieved and were happy when the council decided to amend Article 77 of the Labor Law and we thought the Shoura has started responding positively to the demands of the street. But the council withdrew the proposal saying it required intensive studies, without thinking about the fate of thousands of affected people who live without a monthly income. The Saudis who have lost their jobs fear about existing poverty while they are threatened by a bleak future.
A Shoura member has proposed that allowances of military officers must remain even after retirement as their basic salaries depend on allowances. After retirement officers will not get allowances and will not be able to meet their expenses with mere salaries. In this case the Shoura should have recommended restructuring of the military salary scale to ensure a decent life for its officers before and after retirement.
Some members raised their objections even to the harassment law and considered it as legislation for adultery while others tried to disrupt its passage. As a result of the inefficiency of Shoura members the King had to intervene every time to resolve issues and take vital decisions. Unfortunately the Shoura Council has become a tool for obstructing progress.
An ineffective Shoura member will not apply to relieve him/her from membership as per the law, thinking it would negatively affect his prestige and reputation. At the same time, such members would not admit they were responsible for delaying great decisions. It is the Cabinet’s duty to review Shoura membership regulations and terminate services of inefficient members.
Source: saudigazette.com.sa/article/519036/Opinion/Local-Viewpoint/Shoura-and-vital-decisions
----
Who Is The UN Siding With In Yemen?
By Mashari Althaydi
9 October 2017
Are UN reports about Middle Eastern crises neutral? Are they innocent of “leftist” Obama’s infiltrations and Khomeinite-Brotherhood infiltrations?
We are specifically talking about Yemen here as I will not discuss this institution’s reports and stances towards others matters, such as the Syrian disaster.
A recent UN report about Yemen strangely equalized between what’s legitimate and illegitimate, between the Houthis and Saleh’s forces on one hand and the Yemeni legitimate government and the coalition in support of legitimacy on another. At least that’s how it looked like.
The report focused on violating children’s rights and believed many of the Houthis’ misleading propaganda and the media reports by outlets affiliated with the ousted vengeful president Saleh.
Yemeni journalist Hamdan al-Ali has written how Houthi activists and those sympathizing with them, from among the Khomeini supporters in the West, and the remnants of the leftists who are “skilled” at hating Saudi Arabia infiltrated human rights organizations.
Vision of the Case
These reports are dangerous because they are mostly based on Houthis’ and Saleh’s opinion and their vision of the Yemeni case. There is plenty of evidence to that. They’re also dangerous because they prepare for UN political decisions.
It is therefore important to confront this propaganda early. The legitimacy’s media and its civil activity in the West are to blame here.
The secretary generals of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) condemned the recent UN report because it relied on Houthi reports.
Yemen’s legitimate government responded to the report and said: “The Houthis forged the records of the health ministry and centers which are under the rebel’s control. Children who are killed at the fighting fronts are being documented as civilian children killed by the coalition’s air strikes.”
Another party that deludes the UN is the British organization Oxfam. One of the political activities Oxfam carried out at the beginning of the year was dispatching a member of the British House of Commons “under the hospitality of the UN.”
Oxfam supported his visit to “politically” embellish the Houthis’ image in front of the European society.
According to a piece by Hamdan al-Ali published in this daily, the British MP wrote: “the Houthi rebels must not be negatively viewed and they must not be viewed as Iran’s agents.”
Commenting on the UN Security Council Resolution 2216, which the entire international community agrees on, the British MP voiced the importance of “reaching a ceasefire, holding negotiations and finding an alternative to the UNSCR 2216.”
Speaking of Resolution 2216, which the legitimate dispensation in Yemen insists on as a reference, isn’t the UN supposed to ensure its adherence considering it is the institution that produced it?
Source: english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2017/10/09/Who-is-the-UN-siding-with-in-Yemen-.html
-----
Turkey and Iran Dance the Diplomatic Two-Step
By Yasar Yakis
9 October 2017
The Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s one-day visit to Tehran last week had been due for several months, but the independence referendum held by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) in northern Iraq accelerated the process.
The nature of Turkish-Iranian relations was best described by Shahram Akbarzadeh and Alfred Deakin of the Institute for Citizenship and Globalization in Australia; they said the two countries were “not quite enemies, but less than friends.”
Relations have fluctuated through the centuries. More recently, Turkey and Iran were in different boats in almost all Middle Eastern crises. They were on opposing sides in the Syrian conflict from day one. Turkey did everything to force the Syrian President Bashar Assad to step aside, and Iran did everything to keep him in power. While they are cooperating for the moment in the Astana peace talks, their attitudes in the overall solution to the Syrian crisis continue to be far apart.
As recently as February this year, Turkey was blaming Iran for propagating Persian nationalism in the region. Iran retorted that Turkey was promoting neo-Ottomanism.
Now the two countries are cooperating on the Iraqi Kurdish referendum issue, because both are worried that the referendum may raise the expectation of independence among the strong Kurdish communities in their own countries. Despite this common worry, the absence of mutual trust in general among the major players in the Middle East also affects Turkey and Iran. There is a widespread feeling that everyone has a hidden agenda regarding the Iraqi Kurds.
Iran suspects that, because of the importance of oil for the Iraqi Kurdistan economy, the KRG may find a way to come to an agreement with Turkey in exchange for the latter’s consent to export its oil through the existing pipeline from Kirkuk to the Turkish Mediterranean terminal of Iskenderun. This scepticism is justified, because Turkey has big economic stakes in such an agreement. It would bring sizeable income to Turkey without any additional investment.
Another area where Turkey and the KRG may cooperate is Kirkuk. The incorporation of this province into the scope of the referendum made the entire exercise more debatable. Due to the importance of Kirkuk to Turkey because of the strong Turkmen community in the province, Ankara may persuade the KRG President Masoud Barzani to backtrack on this particular chapter of the referendum issue.
Kirkuk is also important to Baghdad because of the oil reserves. This commonality of interests brings Baghdad and Turkey closer to each other and it may raise concerns in Tehran at being left out of a possible Turkey-Iraq-KRG deal.
Turkey, in turn, suspects Iran because of its strong influence on the central authorities in Baghdad. Furthermore. Iran maintains good relations with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which was initially opposed to the referendum. Iran may use this leverage to negotiate with Barzani a deal that will not cater for Turkey’s interests.
President Erdogan’s visit to Tehran took place against this complex background, but a more imminent threat of Iraqi disintegration pushed the other worries aside and helped the two countries to cooperate more closely. The joint statement issued after the visit said the two countries “rejected the illegal and illegitimate referendum held by the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.”
Although the main purpose of the visit was the Kurdish referendum, the two countries used this opportunity to hold the regular meeting of the Turkish-Iranian Supreme Council for Cooperation, with the participation of ministers in charge of economic, commercial and cultural affairs.
They agreed on several issues, reaffirmation of the goal to increase bilateral trade from $10 billion to $30bn; full implementation of Iranian nuclear deal; a political solution to the Syrian conflict retaining Syria’s national sovereignty; and a call to the international community to increase its support for the Palestinian cause.
The two countries also agreed to use local currency in their bilateral trade.
This visit helped to bring Turkish-Iranian relations one notch higher in the volatile environment of the Middle East. If these two countries manage to cooperate on the Kurdish referendum issue until the question is entirely solved, it will consolidate the present more or less satisfactory relations; if not, it will become another pitfall like the ones they have faced several times in their centuries-old relations.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1175096
-----
The Irresistible Force and the Immovable Objects
By Sharif Nashashibi
9 October 2017
If one had been told in advance that in the space of a fortnight there would be two independence referendums — one in Europe, the other in the Middle East, one peaceful and orderly, the other chaotic and violent — the assumption would be that the chaotic one would take place in the Middle East.
As it stands, however, scenes of an organized vote and jubilant Iraqi Kurds stand in sharp contrast to shocking images of Spanish police beating Catalan voters (injuring about 900 of them), blocking access to polling stations and confiscating ballot boxes.
The irony of calling the Catalan referendum a “mockery of democracy” while violently trying to block it was clearly lost on the Spanish government. Equally ironic is Madrid’s attempt to belittle the referendum by citing a low turnout of 43 percent, when Spanish authorities went out of their way to physically stop Catalans from voting.
But while the conduct of the two referendums was vastly different, both Catalans and Kurds now face the perils of translating a vote on independence into actual statehood. Both their national governments dismiss the referendums as unconstitutional, and have vowed to block and punish a declaration of independence.
So far neither the Catalans nor the Kurds are backing down, though the former seem to be reacting more stridently, amid reports and speculation that they could declare independence this week.
The Kurds, on the other hand, seem to be taking a more measured approach, organizing presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for Nov. 1. They are either biding their time while reading the geopolitical terrain, or ensuring stronger state foundations before declaring independence.
Whether in Spain or Iraq, both sides of the divide face harsh and inescapable realities, whether they choose to acknowledge that or not. Madrid and Baghdad are stubbornly refusing to budge, not least because of widespread domestic (and in Iraq’s case, regional) opposition to territorial division, as well as the costs of losing economically important regions.
As such, from the viewpoint of the Spanish and Iraqi governments, they have much to lose and nothing to gain from backing down. But they must realize that Catalan and Iraqi Kurdish leaders may be as unable to cave as they are unwilling to do so. Having fanned separatist sentiment and promised statehood for years, backtracking — at least significantly — would probably be political suicide.
Simply put, once the genie of self-determination is let out of the lamp, it is extremely difficult to put back in. But this is also a limitation for Madrid and Baghdad. The more they make threats, the more they galvanize separatism and hostility in Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan toward their authority, which will be increasingly viewed as foreign, oppressive and unrepresentative.
This view would be hugely amplified — even among Catalans and Kurds opposed to statehood — with the use of force. This would be a public relations nightmare for Madrid and Baghdad — as well as Ankara and Tehran if they joined in alongside Iraqi forces — on the international stage.
Spain would face the quagmire of repressing a largely peaceful movement that would be limited to civil disobedience. Meanwhile, Iraq would face a potentially full-blown military conflict against well-organized and battle-hardened Kurdish forces that could be directly supported by their ethnic kin in neighbouring Turkey, Iran and Syria. And a successful outcome in purely military terms would do nothing to quell civilian opposition.
But for any referendum on, or declaration of, independence to be successfully implemented, regional and international recognition are vital — and in the case of both Catalonia and Iraqi Kurdistan, lacking.
The latter region is landlocked by four neighbours, all of whom vehemently oppose its independence, and could choke a Kurdish state economically if they so wished — something Kurdish officials have openly acknowledged. Indeed, though Turkey, Iraq and Iran have threatened or implied various countermeasures, they have placed greatest emphasis on economic sanctions as the most effective and least risky of their options.
In announcing and preparing for the referendum, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) may have been counting on regional divisions thwarting a united front against statehood, but the vote has actually created such a front among its neighbors.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has declared its support for Kurdish independence. But its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has barred Israeli officials from commenting on the issue, no doubt to avoid upsetting Turkey, which had condemned Israel’s support for the Kurds, and with which Tel Aviv had only recently patched up relations after years of tensions.
And though the US and Russia support Iraqi Kurdish forces in the fight against Daesh, Washington came out against the referendum, and neither government (nor others worldwide) would risk jeopardizing relations with key regional allies by recognizing a Kurdish state.
Governments will face the same consideration via-a-vis Catalonia. Thus far, none have come out in support of its independence from Madrid, and this is unlikely to change, certainly not within the EU or NATO, both of which include Spain, which would block Catalonian membership of the European bloc.
With regard to Iraqi Kurdistan, there is currently a seemingly irreconcilable standoff, with one side refusing to accept a future as part of Iraq, and the other side adamantly rejecting a divorce.
This is not necessarily the case with Catalonia if it does not declare independence this week. It could still be enticed by greater autonomy and more favourable terms, particularly regarding Catalans’ legitimate grievance that they give more to the national government than they get back.
But Madrid’s obstinacy could take the situation past the point of no return, and a Catalan declaration of independence would probably trigger Spain’s threat to revoke its autonomy altogether.
In both cases, opposing sides have painted themselves into a corner. Those who seek independence need, but currently lack, a viable plan to achieve it. And those who seek to deny independence have so far presented no plausible strategy to win the hearts and minds of those they insist on continuing to rule.
Source: arabnews.com/node/1175126
-----
Welcome To the UAE, Welcome to Dubai
By Nasif Kayed
October 9, 2017
My advice to those who are new to the country and to those who have been here is to relax, take a deep breath and dive right into the melting pot of cultures.
The past month has been busy with schools reopening, people coming back from vacations and many of them coming to the UAE for the first time. Among the new lot, there will be some curious ones, looking to ask questions and learn about their new environment. Some noticeably unnerved; obviously stereotypes.
My advice to those who are new to the country and to those who have been here is to relax, take a deep breath and dive right into the melting pot of cultures. Surround yourself with positive people, and find out for yourself what this place is like. Remember that birds of (the same) a feather flock together. Dubai is a relatively safe city, actually most expats say it is much safer than most big cities. Laws exist to protect those who wish to enjoy a peaceful life, while the same laws can be harsh on those who disturb peace or violate the basic rights.
Just like a speeding ticket, laws are there to punish the act, not the people. What is right in your hometown is right here, too, most of the time. People of over 200 nationalities live in the UAE. Which naturally means, there will be 200 interpretations in the UAE?with 200 interpretations of what is 'right' or wrong. While the nation as a whole is concerned about your happiness and wellbeing, keep in mind that laws exist to protect all, and not please all. For instance, nobody walks around with a measuring stick to measure the length of that dress; and we don't patrol the malls looking for infractions. Police doesn't arrest you for greeting your spouse with a kiss on the cheek, or simply holding his or her hand. But anything further than that may be scrutinized. So mind your Ps & Qs and excessive show of affection. I should say a public place is a family space and it is rated G.
UAE authorities don't come knocking on your door to ask what are you doing or how are you living your life. The UAE is home to many people from all walks of life, cultures and religions. Peaceful coexistence is the objective. So knowing the law, and hanging out with good, positive people, is key to not getting into trouble or breaking the law knowingly or unknowingly. As for those who differ with you, exercise tolerance.
At the Arab culturalist, we offer programmes that answer your questions with a smile. Also, our blog has answers to many questions, and articles written via this column in the Khaleej Times.
Take a deep breath and think positive. Be yourself, mind the safety of others, be respectful to others and treat them the way you would like to be treated yourself, and if you make a mistake just offer sincere apologies. Forgive and forget, and give each other a chance to show kindness. As your host, we will do the same, protect you and support you with laws and rules that are there for the benefit of all.
Source: khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/welcome-to-the-uae-welcome-to-dubai
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/middle-east-press/securing-nation-more-than-weapons/d/112822